Revenge of the Nerd — The Amateur
The old adage about ignorance being bliss is sometimes quite accurate. I’ve been through far too many experiences where not knowing something crucial allowed me a modicum of extra pleasure, and conversely, on occasion knowing too much spoiled the fun. This is why, way back when I established my “Remake Rule” on this blog (though of course it existed on a personal level long before), the very first carveout was “If I’m aware.” I admit I’m a flawed individual, and as such I contain some biases, conscious or not. In this context, one of them is a distrust for remakes, and a belief that they should justify their own existence. The movie’s already been made once, sometimes multiple times, so why in God’s name does a studio deserve my money (and yours) to see it again? And you can’t just default to a tautology like, “It’s film, therefore it’s art.” Sorry, no. It’s someone else’s art that you have decided to profit off of. If someone looks at the Mona Lisa and says, “I’m going to paint it again, only I’ll give her a huge rack,” that’s not art, that’s plagiarism. This is also why so many in my industry and across the country are fighting against so-called “AI art,” because there’s no actual thought put into it. It’s just an approximation and amalgam of something others created, and it should not be endorsed or condoned in any way, especially not with money that could go to actual people.
All this is to say that when I saw The Amateur last week, I didn’t know it was a remake of a film from 1981, itself adapted from a novel by Robert Littell, who co-wrote the original movie’s script. I never heard of it, mostly because it was a Canadian production from before I was born that had basically no impact in the U.S. (though apparently it was nominated for a slew of “Genie” Awards, which was Canada’s equivalent of the Oscars before they went defunct in 2012). Had I known, I would have skipped it entirely, because while the inclusion of Rami Malek and Laurence Fishburne in the lead roles was a tad intriguing, it didn’t clear my bar of “a compelling reason” to shell out the time and cash for this newest edition. Thankfully, the finished product does distinguish itself from its predecessors (at least from what I’ve read), and while the flick is far from great, I admit there was enough to enjoy on a very thin surface level.
The basic story is that a cryptographer at the CIA, Charlie Heller (Malek), learns to his horror that his wife Sarah (Rachel Brosnahan; it’s a fiancée in the book and original movie) has been killed in a terror attack in London. In his rage, he demands training and resources from his superiors so he can personally extract lethal vengeance against the four people responsible, who he tracked down himself using his career skills. That’s fine enough on its own, though the trailer spoiled two of the four hits the reluctant assassin carries out, which also happen to be the coolest moments of the entire picture. But still, the idea that an underestimated, scrawny, bookish functionary takes it upon himself to do what the big, burly field agents won’t does have a certain appeal. On a personal note, it reminded me fondly of when I was in high school and took the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) exam, because at the time the military was an option I was seriously considering, especially if I couldn’t get enough financial aid for college (I’ll be paying back those loans for the rest of my life). I sucked at the Automotive and Mechanical sections, because I’m just not into that sort of stuff, but I placed in the 97th percentile or higher pretty much everywhere else, including Coding Speed, and that led to several visits from recruiters, particularly the Navy, who wanted to train me to be a codebreaker. I’ve often wondered where my life might have gone had I taken that path.
What I’m saying is, yeah, I could definitely get behind Malek’s character and identify with him. The best parts of the film are the moments where Charlie proves himself smarter than the rest of the room and we watch him solve the various puzzles, even if the means are a bit off. For example, while tracking one of the assailants (Barbara Probst, no relation to the host of Survivor as far as I can tell) to an apartment in Paris, he breaks in to the place by watching a lock-picking tutorial video on his phone. That’s goofy as hell, but oddly in character for someone as outwardly timid as Charlie, and it contrasts nicely with the super-encrypted and secretive methods he uses for contacting outside intelligence sources. His attention to detail and security automatically make him more qualified than the current Secretary of Defense, but that’s a different matter entirely.
Where things fall apart is pretty much everywhere else, with dangling plot threads and nonsensical asides that stretch the viewer’s ability to suspend disbelief. From the moment you see the location font for CIA headquarters, the George Bush Center for Intelligence, you know you’re not meant to take anything seriously. I know they’re referring to H.W. because he was head of the agency (for just under a year in the late 70s) before becoming President, but you can’t avoid a mental association with his idiotic son, who retroactively looks like a genius compared to the current occupant of the White House.
Setting that meta chuckle aside, you have a complete subplot about uncovering corruption and black ops extrajudicial murders by a high-ranking official (Holt McCallany), and the film acts like the current CIA Director (Julianne Nicholson) would actually work to take him down rather than just keeping things clandestine. Similarly, after Charlie bluffs and blackmails his way to get training from Agent Henderson (Fishburne, introducing himself by declaring that Charlie should sit up front in his vehicle because he’s not a chauffeur, making me laugh once more remembering that was his exact role in Megalopolis), his bosses double-cross him and send “Hendo” to kill him, and somehow he’s always right there on the scene every time Charlie’s about to make a move. We have to watch Charlie figure things out, but Henderson can just show up out of nowhere with no explanation as to how, or even why the CIA would bother. Charlie’s so inadequately prepared for his self-imposed mission that it would be safer and more efficient to just leave the man to his devices. Either he gets killed by the professional assassins he’s chasing, thereby eliminating the problem, or he succeeds, thereby ridding the world of four more terrorists. It’s a win-win, so why fight him on anything and risk exposure? Finally, for some reason Jon Bernthal is here as a field agent who considers Charlie something of a “friend,” because he did something tech-related on an operation that “saved his life.” We never find out what that is, or how it’s relevant, so when Bernthal shows up in the third act, in Russia, to give Charlie some advice, we have no reason to care about why he’s even there or why they’re associating.
Outside of the spy thriller tropes, we still get precious little information that’s germane to Charlie’s character. For some reason he’s restoring an old Cessna in his garage. The film even opens with him looking over his parts as if he’s going to do something, but he’s also wearing a shirt and tie to go to work, so the whole scene feels superfluous. We know basically nothing about Sarah as a person, only that she’s a tragically dead wife in a movie. She’s an ideal rather than an actual character. After she’s identified, the press swarms outside Charlie’s house (wouldn’t that out him as a CIA agent?) trying to get him to comment on anything, and yet the next day, after he identifies Sarah’s killers and puts his plan into motion, they’re nowhere to be found. Are you aware of any news outlet that would tell its reporters to just fuck off home less than 36 hours into a major national security story? Because I sure as hell don’t.
A lot of this comes down to the “too many cooks” problem. Strictly speaking, the screenplay was written by Ken Nolan ( Black Hawk Down) and Gary Spinelli ( American Made). However, that was a determination made by the Writers Guild of America, after production was halted and later resumed because of the 2023 labor strikes. Original screenwriter Evan Katz (the Executive Producer of the hit TV series 24; this film amazingly began development in 2006) and seven other writers were credited for “additional literary material,” including director Jason Hawes and Littell. So in all, at least 10 different writers had an official hand in this. That’s just too much, especially when you consider that apart from some cosmetic and location changes, the only significant departure from the original novel and film is that, given the Cold War backdrop back then, the CIA actually did leave Charlie to his fate behind the Iron Curtain and washed their hands of him. I get the need to update that particular aspect, but everything else is just window dressing, and much of it just doesn’t mesh.
Again, when the focus is squarely on Charlie and his ability to use his brain, this is pretty fun. He tracks down the killers, lays waste to them in creative ways, and uses clever means to evade Henderson to the point where they form a respectful rivalry and eventual friendship. Everything else is just noise, the sort of lazy padding you’d expect to see in a standard-issue, cash grab movie remake. In the end, I’m glad I didn’t know it was a remake beforehand, because there are things worth recommending here, but at the same time, had I known and dismissed it out of hand, I wouldn’t have missed anything groundbreaking.
Grade: C+
Join the conversation in the comments below! What film should I review next? What’s your personal policy on remakes? Why would anyone dare to swim in a suspended rooftop pool? Let me know! And remember, you can follow me on Twitter (fuck “X”) as well as Bluesky, and subscribe to my YouTube channel for even more content, and check out the entire BTRP Media Network at btrpmedia.com!
Originally published at http://actuallypaid.com on April 24, 2025.
